Booksquare

76 responses so far ↓

• Shannon // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:14 am

  Nice analysis, thanks for posting it. I’ve been following this story with interest. I have, admittedly, not read any of the Harry Potter books, but Rowling’s actions as of late have ensured that I never will. As you say, it was a deadly PR move on her part. I don’t see that, as an author, she respects her readers or even her own contribution to popular culture.

• Martin // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:14 am

  Very interesting, I’ve been struggling with this for a while and didn’t buy her arguement of “it’s not very good,” but wasn’t sure if she DID have a legitimate one. It seems she does not.

• Deborah Clark Ebel // Apr 21, 2008 at 10:32 am

  Like Shannon, I have not read any of Rowling’s books. Just not interested. I am, though, in her assertion that she, at some point in time, plans to write her own encyclopedia/lexicon. Well, that’s great! But, she hasn’t done it thus far and that is where her complaint falls flat. Perhaps the lexicon that has been written may help others to read and understand her work and, undoubtedly, if and when she puts forth her own, readers will buy hers, too.
  Not about the money? Now, there’s a fantasy!

• Erika // Apr 21, 2008 at 10:44 am

  What seems most urgent for the immediate future is the clinching of this particular law suit on the entire arts and entertainment industry.

  In the world where JK wins:
  will authors of spin off lit have to wait until the creator of the original work in question–book/film/comic/what have you–is dead? Or will there be another law suit 30 years from now that will extend the reach of the copyright?

  This seems as definitive a case for publishing as Roe v Wade has been for social religion.

• Jamie Low // Apr 21, 2008 at 11:58 am

  It may be the transition from a digital format to print that caught her attention; yet it’s the digital format that makes the content findable in search engines. Try almost any search you can think of related to the Harry Potter universe, and you’ll find that hp-lexicon.org has cast a very wide net. There’s a page dedicated to every location, creature, spell and character, and those pages rank extremely well because other folks on the web “voted” for that content by linking directly to those pages. If she launches a similar “official” site of her own, but fails to publish it in a similar manner in a “free”‘ online format, both Wikipedia and the unofficial Lexicon site will continue to be a more findable resource for Harry Potter fans searching for thousands of long tail terms like “sirius black” or “death eaters”. (And yes, he does run Google AdSense ads.)

• Robyn // Apr 21, 2008 at 12:17 pm

  I wonder why she didn’t sue “The complete idiot’s guide to the world of Harry Potter” and the like. They seem like the same sort of thing.

• Folklore Fanatic // Apr 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm

  Under normal circumstances of legitimate ‘literary discussion,’ I would completely agree with you, but this is a clear case of copyright infringement. Van Der Ark did not include any of the non-fiction essays present on his website. What he did do was copy definitions from “Fantastic Beasts” word-for-word and repost them under the heading The Bestiary. He used more quotations in his entries on individual characters than could ever be considered “fair use,” because those directly lifted passages from Rowling’s books comprise the bulk of the text, with a few words switched here and there on the ‘unqouted’ parts so as to get away with using her phrasing and to leave out attribution. If she were properly credited on the Lexicon website, the only truly original texts would be the theoretical essays. The entire text of the proposed encyclopaedia is online at Justia.com. Further investigations have revealed that RDR and VDA failed to respond to REPEATED requests for a copy of the manuscript by JKR and WB, again and again until they were forced to pursue legal means to acquire the text, which is basically a printed version of the website minus the essays. This is also documented.

  Many, many fans are dismayed at VDA’s erratic and arrogant behavior over the past two years. If the courts fail to review the adundant evidence properly and find in favor of VDA and RDR, many authors and thei corporate partners may take preemptive measures to protect their copyrights and force fandom websites and material off the internet and back underground. I am hoping that VDA loses, because I do not want to see the consequences of one stupid man’s selfish quest for fame result in a chilling effect across fandom.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  Folklore Fanatic — You seem to have a personal stake in this issue.

  I understand the copyright issues, but the testimony indicates that this isn’t just about lifted passages (and, weirdly, this aspect of the case seems to be the most underplayed). Rowling’s own comments indicate that she sees a broader issue at stake. If this were a clear-cut case of plagiarism, then I doubt RDR’s lawyers would have let this get to trial. Litigation is incredibly expensive, and in cases like this, especially with the attendant publicity, tend to be settled out of court. And when I say expensive, I mean on both sides and in terms of time and money

  I am not convinced by your argument that a win for RDR will force fan sites further underground. If anything, it will provide a clearer understanding of fair use and derivative works.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Jamie (awesome domain name, by the way!) — I agree that it was the transition that caught their attention, but your point about the digital text being more “findable” is on the mark. I appreciate your checking on the Ad Sense thing because I failed to notice (I have advertising blindness!) when I checked the site earlier. For better or worse, Rowling has given a de facto endorsement for this site and the monetization of the content on the site (assuming the ads have been there a lengthy period of time).

  I did laugh at your comments about doing the “official” lexicon in a search engine friendly sort of way. If history is any indicator, uh, no.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  Erika — yes. I am less interested in the specific parties involved with this case than I am with the long-term implications. As content grows increasingly valuable and content owners lock down information to protect their financial stake (and this is not a bad thing; I believe that copyright holders need to protect their work), there is a squeezing of fair use and derivative works.

  If the public has a stake in protecting copyright — and we do have a Constitutional mandate — then the copyright owners must acknowledge their equal responsibility.

• Brenda Coulter // Apr 21, 2008 at 4:05 pm

  Rowling’s refusal to release an ebook version of the “Harry Potter” series due to fear of piracy (among other reasons) lead to, you guessed it!, increased piracy without a single legal alternative for consumers. Demand existed for the ebook — small demand, sure, but demand — yet only the pirates met it.

  I don’t think we have any basis for assuming the absence of legal downloads led to “increased” piracy. Not that I agreed with Rowling’s decision to nix e-books, but it seems to me that widely available e-books would have led to more illegal distribution, not less–because there would have been far more copies out there to be shared illegally. But of course I can’t prove that any more than you can prove your assertion.
  😉

  Interesting post, Kassia. Thanks.

• Sandy // Apr 21, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  ONE:

  JKR has NOT sued one of her fans. Jeez. Why does NO ONE understand this? She has actually shown GREAT restraint and some would say immense kindness in NOT doing so. She certainly could have. She only sued the publisher.

  TWO:

  She used it as a resource for about a split second, as you’d know if you read the reports about her testimony.

  THREE:

  The book takes her *exact words* – the way she describes her creatures, her worlds – instead of describing it in a new way. That’s theft. Pure and simple.

  FOUR:

  SVA and RDR have lied their TEETH off regarding this case. Again, please read a single document.

  FIVE:

  They didn’t sue “The Idiot’s Guide” et al, because, as they LABORED to show n court, those are SO MUCH BETTER than the Lexicon book. They define things in their own words, only use what is necessary, offer insights and conclusions, talk about themes. They don’t simply LIFT her words and put them into their own book without any possible proper citation.

  I really would have thought Bookseller would make some sort of effort to read about this case.

  JKR may be “famously” protective of her copyright but she is also more famously FREE with it. Web sites, wizard rock, fanfic and more – she stays completely out of it. The ONLY time she has spoken up and said NO is when someone tries to take her exact work and profit from it.

  If she wins there isn’t a SINGLE book that won’t get written; Idiot’s Guides et al wll stil be allowed. The difference is that the writers of those books will continue to be forced to do actual WORK on them. Wow, how Draconian. How evil of her.

  If she loses this case you should shiver for booksellers around the globe, who will be allowed to take the *exact* phrases found in books (91%, according to a chart filed by an expert), rearrange them, and sell them while doing NO interpretive work. Do you REALLY want to cheapen literature, so? Honestly?

  How sad.

• terri // Apr 21, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Do you understand how it would devastate anyone who’s entire
  creativity of a character that is so great of an influence on the literary world of children and all ages would feel if someone could dare to steal and plagerize so blatantly with the heart beating and pumping their creative genious through there body. She must be devastated.

• Luiz Dantas // Apr 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  It’s funny, Krozser, that the transcription of Jeff Gomez you cited, started with “True, it’s a different story when someone is using your exact words, repackaging them for their own profit.” Because that’s exactly what this is. The proposed Lexicon book is available in its entirety at justia.com and what I saw of it (coupled with the evidences presented and the timeline of the case – yes, I’ve followed it obsessively) leaves no doubt in my mind that this book is not fair use.

• Kirk // Apr 21, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  Brenda – The fact is, there have been no official ebook releases of any of the Harry Potter books, yet all of them are widely available through the usual pirate networks. So, clearly, withholding a legal digital edition does not prevent piracy.

  What it does do is prevent those consumers who actually prefer the digital edition from paying for it. And yes, some of those people will download one of the freely available versions. If for no other reason because no one will let them pay for the privilege.

  Given these facts, it’s pretty hard to argue that withholding the digital edition didn’t lead to an increase in piracy.

  Also, an increase in available digital editions does not lead to an increase in piracy. It only takes one digital file to create an infinite number of copies. And that digital file can easily be created from an analogue source, as it was with the Harry Potter books.

  Once that single copy makes it to bittorrent it’s available everywhere. That’s how digital piracy works.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  Sandy (et al) — Let’s be perfectly clear on one point: this work has already been published. If Rowling and/or WB had an issue with the content, the appropriate time to issue a cease and desist would have been, oh, when it was first published online. Print or digital, the fact of the matter is that this work has been published (and, as Jamie Lowe noted, owns the search results — a serious deficit that both Rowling and WB have to recover; man, this case is a master class in how content owners lose control of their own conversation).

  Rowling was clearly aware of this publication. It doesn’t matter if she used it a little bit or a lot. She read the content, used the content, and, yes, she and WB both tacitly endorsed the author of the site. If you’re going to cry plagiarism, again, you do it on day one, not when the content morphs from one format to another. I’m not an expert on divining the acceptable percentage of words to comprise fair use, but it’s pretty obvious that there was a deliberate decision to look the other way.

  This amuses me mostly because if the site’s author (Vander Ark) is using Google Ads, then chances are he’s making some money. Maybe not a lot, maybe he’ll do better with the book, but a smart person could clean up with online advertising. But that’s neither here nor there. The content has been published, Rowling and WB knew about it, they did nothing to stop it…until the format changed.

  This tells me there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on in the real world.

  You want my expert opinion? If this work is as lame as everyone suggests, the market will respond accordingly. RDR’s timing is lousy — if you’re going to capitalize on the HP phenomenon, you’re going a year too late. Unless this turns out to be the definitive guide that millions turn to for answers, well, it’s going to be marginalized.

  Though, of course, you have to factor in the free publicity created by this lawsuit (another reason why this could have been handled better by Rowling/WB — they’ve basically created the best of all possible marketing campaigns; honestly, I would have expected better from WB’s outside counsel). Then again, this is offset by the fact that this content is readily available online (and while I haven’t read the filings closely, since the case is against RDR, not the website [unless RDR has acquired those rights too?], that’s going to remain as it is). The kind of reference material being created here is growing increasingly marginalized as the consumer uses online resources — which can be more comprehensive and extensive — instead of print (static, point-in-time) resources.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  Brenda — As Kirk notes, it takes only one digital copy to increase piracy (if I recall correctly, this digital copy was released into the wild prior to the last book’s release, meaning that someone in the publishing food chain was responsible). Sure, more digital sales might increase the number of people who potentially upload content to pirate sites, but let’s be real here — most people aren’t pirates. Most people don’t know how to do this kind of stuff. Most people wouldn’t think of it.

  Assuming your customers are criminals is creating an increasingly negative impression of media companies. There is ample evidence that consumers will happily pay for content (iTunes and Amazon being significant proof) as long the content is a) easily accessible, b) portable/easily used, and c) reasonably priced. These are not unreasonable consumer demands — but they sure seem hard for media companies to grasp!

  Choking off supply doesn’t decrease demand and it doesn’t stop piracy. If anything, as the music industry has learned the hard way, treating the consumer like a criminal created a piracy nightmare.

• Jacks // Apr 21, 2008 at 6:47 pm

  You know, I can see your point, but I can’t get over the documents that have been filed where you can look at the Lexicon text and look at Rowling’s and see that the only work that’s gone in to it is typing it up. I can’t get past the estimate that the Lexicon’s text is made up of something like 90 per cent of Rowling’s words.

  How do you justisfy that? I don’t get paid for anything I write but if someone tried to pass off 90 per cent of my work as something of theirs? I would raise a stink.

  Plus, if you read the history of the case, this didn’t start with Rowling and Warner Bros jumping to sue a fan. From what I’ve read, the rather shady actions of RDR books forced it to this point.

• Sandy // Apr 21, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  >>Sandy (et al) — Let’s be perfectly clear on one point: this work has already been published.

  For free access, not sold for a profit. As SVA has so laboriously pointed out, he did not make money on the site.

  >>If Rowling and/or WB had an issue with the content, the appropriate time to issue a cease and desist would have been, oh, when it was first published online. Print or digital, the fact of the matter is that this work has been published (and, as Jamie Lowe noted, owns the search results — a serious deficit that both Rowling and WB have to recover; man, this case is a master class in how content owners lose control of their own conversation).

  Well, no. That’s a matter of opinion. If she wants to look the other way when somethng s free and harmless, that’s one thing; if she allows that to then be sold, she’s lost her copyright. Just think of all the HORRIFIC results of what you’re saying: Can everyone who has made a YouTube mashup sell their work? Can everyone who has written fanfiction? And now you’er saying that copyright holders have to stop fans from enjoyng their free and harmless time wth a property, because one idiot ruined it all by trying to sell it. Those activities often make fandoms for authors and filmmakers, and havng to crimp down on that before they get going, for fear someone will pull an SVA, will severely harm creativity and the sale of creative works.

  >>Rowling was clearly aware of this publication. It doesn’t matter if she used it a little bit or a lot. She read the content, used the content, and, yes, she and WB both tacitly endorsed the author of the site. If you’re going to cry plagiarism, again, you do it on day one, not when the content morphs from one format to another. I’m not an expert on divining the acceptable percentage of words to comprise fair use, but it’s pretty obvious that there was a deliberate decision to look the other way.

  Again: When it was free.

  When you sell it, the nature and purpose of the work changes, and that, legally, is a HUGE deal.

  >>This amuses me mostly because if the site’s author (Vander Ark) is using Google Ads, then chances are he’s making some money.

  As he said: Over 7 years, something lke 6500. That’s barely operating costs. He is not.

  >> Maybe not a lot, maybe he’ll do better with the book, but a smart person could clean up with online advertising. But that’s neither here nor there. The content has been published, Rowling and WB knew about it, they did nothing to stop it…until the format changed.

  The format changing chnaged the way the law treats it. You don’t seem to like this fact.

  >>This tells me there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on in the real world.

  Erm, no. JKR has allowed this stuff online because it is free and harmless; if letting your fandoms go basically unchecked means you lose yoru copyrights, well, then, GOODBYE fandoms! And goodbye to a lot of the support authors get from their fans. That’s tragic.

  >>You want my expert opinion?

  You have not in any way struck me as an expert. Read some of the court documents.

  >>If this work is as lame as everyone suggests, the market will respond accordingly.

  It will not.

  MuggleNet’s book was pretty horrendously lame. But they had an audience smilar in size and scope to the Lexicon, and sold 325,000 copies.

  (But, it was Fair Use, in spades, as sucky as it was.)

  >>RDR’s timing is lousy — if you’re going to capitalize on the HP phenomenon, you’re going a year too late. Unless this turns out to be the definitive guide that millions turn to for answers, well, it’s going to be marginalized.

  And again, not necessarily. More importantly? That doesn’t matter. Theft is theft, whether it’s of $1 or $1,000, or $1,000,000. No court on earth would say that it’s okay to steal a penny but not $1,000. They would punish differently for each crime, but they wouldn’t say one ISN’T a crime.

  >>Though, of course, you have to factor in the free publicity created by this lawsuit (another reason why this could have been handled better by Rowling/WB — they’ve basically created the best of all possible marketing campaigns; honestly, I would have expected better from WB’s outside counsel).

  That is, unfortunately, not their doing. They have been very quiet to the press. It has been RDR that have been loudmouths.

  >>Then again, this is offset by the fact that this content is readily available online (and while I haven’t read the filings closely, since the case is against RDR, not the website [unless RDR has acquired those rights too?], that’s going to remain as it is).

  That’s irrelevant to the issue at hand, whch is whether what they are doing is theft.

  >>The kind of reference material being created here is growing increasingly marginalized as the consumer uses online resources — which can be more comprehensive and extensive — instead of print (static, point-in-time) resources.

  And that is, again, neither here nor there. The whole BOOK is in the public documents, and you don’t see anyone – not even RDR’s side – saying, “Well, the book won’t sell at all now because it’s been posted in public documents.” That’s not the issue, that’s not the argument.

  The argument is whether JKR can say in her book that the sword of Gryffindor was “forged centuries ago by goblins and had certain properties only goblin-made armor possesses,” and if the Lexicon, describing said sword, uses those exact words. (I don’t know if it does; I just opened my book to a random page and chose an example. It may be a bad one, but it illustrates the issue at core: Use YOUR words to describe HER inventions and she’s FINE with that, the way she is fine with the Idiot’s guide.

• The Daily Loper - April 21, 2008 | Medialoper // Apr 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm

  […] JK Rowling Is WrongSo says Kassia over on Booksquare. And Kassia is right. […]

• Diane // Apr 21, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  Sandy – THANK YOU!

  I am so SICK of journalists and bloggers spitting out opinions when it’s clear from reading their blogs and commentaries they haven’t bothered to look beyond the ‘JK Rowling is so wrong and a horrible person for suing a fan.”

  For one thing – she is not suing a fan. She is suing that fan’s publishers. Big world of difference.

  I don’t even particularly like JK Rowling all that much but it really blows my mind that people – WRITERS – don’t seem to care that someone is attempting to profit from another ones work.

  91% of that ‘book’ was lifted directly – directly with no changes to text – from Rowling’s work. If Van Derark had changed the wording on everything then perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

• Diane // Apr 21, 2008 at 8:01 pm

  I’m finding it hard to take your opinions seriously since you obviously know nothing about JKR’s work.

  “Rowling, over the course of eight books, created a complex world filled with new concepts, new language, detailed history, and a host of characters.”

  The series was seven books. There were also two companion books, so perhaps the point can be stretched to say there are nine books. Either way, eight is incorrect.

  I stopped reading there. I’ve seen enough uninformed opinions about this case to last a lifetime, I don’t need to see another.

• Brenda Coulter // Apr 21, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  Kirk, you missed my emphasis on the word increased. I’m not disputing the fact that piracy has occurred. I’m questioning the assumption that piracy has occurred on a greater scale than it would have if the books had been published in e-formats. There is no way to measure that.

  Also, an increase in available digital editions does not lead to an increase in piracy. It only takes one digital file to create an infinite number of copies.

  Certainly. But Kirk (and Kassia), if the files are legally available everywhere, surely that would offer more temptation, as it were. If there are ten cookies on the plate in front of you, you’re probably more likely to eat one than you would be if there was only one cookie and it was in a box in the cupboard behind the breakfast cereal. The more cook–uh, files available, the more people might get ideas about illegal copying and distribution. And by “more people” I’m talking about the number of individuals. Put five people in a room with your plate of cookies and probably nobody will think about stealing them. But put 100 people in that room, and you’ve just increased your likelihood of loosing your cookies.

  That’s all I’m saying.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 8:09 pm

  Sandy, I’m sorry but your argument doesn’t cut it. If it’s an issue of plagiarism, then it doesn’t matter if it’s free or done for profit. Stealing someone else’s work is stealing someone else’s work. It doesn’t matter if it’s published on the web or in print format, it’s plagiarism.

  However, an author can’t tacitly, heck not even tacitly, actually endorse “plagiarized” content in one format while fighting it in another. You say that Rowling is fine with someone using their own words to describe her ideas, but, other than some speculative essays on this site, aren’t you saying that all the content was essentially Rowling’s? Why didn’t she stop it then — if the stealing was as extensive you’re saying, why did she (or her lawyers) allow it continue? Why did she use the content as a resource? Why did she endorse it?

  I’m serious about this. When authors discover they’re being plagiarized, whether or not the plagiarist is making money or doing it for profit, they take action. There is a vast difference between fan-fic, fan sites, and other fan actions and out-and-out plagiarism. You seem to be conflating plagiarism with standard fan activities. Plagiarism is, even when free, not “harmless”.

  In fact, your point about mash-ups, etc supports my point. There has to be a reasonable threshold for fair use versus stealing.

  If this case were about simple plagiarism, then I doubt it would have gone to trial. RDR doesn’t have the resources to litigate this. Rowling does, Warner Brothers does.

  It doesn’t matter if it’s online, in print, for profit, not for profit. Stealing is stealing. Format doesn’t matter. Do you think that the RIAA is suing left and right because of physical media? No. If you’re going to assert your rights, you must do so the moment you are aware of a violation. You don’t wink with one eye and glare with another.

  You cannot pick and choose the format when it comes to plagiarism. Even if I’m to accept your point, Rowling and Warner Brothers weakened their positions long ago.

  Let’s talk about free because I think it’s a seriously misunderstood concept when it comes to online media. Just because you, the consumer, get to view the content without paying doesn’t make it free, just like the fact that you don’t pay for network television or terrestrial radio doesn’t make it free.

  As you indicated, the author made some money from selling ads. Probably not enough to cover his costs, but the fact that he’s displaying ads on his site indicates a desire to monetize content. Sorry, it does. If he’s not capable of making real money, that’s not my problem. He’s selling advertising. You and everyone else who visits this site are “paying” in the form of viewing ads.

  I still think Rowling and Warner Brothers handled this badly. From the beginning. You say that RDR has generated all the publicity, but you’re quite wrong. Rowling’s celebrity has spun this from a small story into a front-page story. RDR simply wins.

  For the record, never bought an RDR book, never met anyone from the company, never visited the Vander Ark site (except for researching this article), and have paid full price for every book in the Harry Potter series.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm

  Diane — oops. Seven, eight. I goofed. Sue me. I’ve read them all. I forget numbers. I’m old. But I’ve read them all. Sorry for not being an obsessive fan. I read a lot of books.

  In my post, I was clear about the parties to the suit, but you, as a reader, must be accustomed to reading the sub-text. And the sub-text is that she’s suing a fan. You don’t have to like it. You can argue that we’re playing with semantics, but you have to look beyond your world.

  Also, if you actually read what I’m saying, you’ll see that I am pretty consistent in my message. I’m informed.

• Sandy // Apr 21, 2008 at 8:27 pm

  >>Sandy, I’m sorry but your argument doesn’t cut it.

  In your opinion, and since you admit not even reading the documents to this case I find your opinion extaordinarily flawed.

  >>If it’s an issue of plagiarism, then it doesn’t matter if it’s free or done for profit.

  Do you even KNOW that plagiarism isn’t a crime but an academic concept? And that the nature of what you’re using such work for determines whether it’s COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not plagiarism? The four factors of CI indicate that purpose matters; selling indicates purpose, which makes the money matter a HUGE deal.

  There are many easy to read documents about copyright infringement online, would you like to be pointed to some of them?

  >>Stealing someone else’s work is stealing someone else’s work. It doesn’t matter if it’s published on the web or in print format, it’s plagiarism.

  Maybe not to you. But certainly to the law, which doesn’t even recognize plagiarism.

  Format matters, because books are published in print, in eBook, in audio tape, and more. And intent and purpose of the work – ie, is it for free, or are you selling it? – are key factors in determining whether or not it’s copyrght infringement.

  No one’s saying the web Lexicon isn’t plagiarism. It absolutely is. JKR is saying she’s fine wth that, when it’s not being re-sold to the public; she doesn’t even care if he makes a pittance from the Web site. When her work is repackaged and sold, that’s when she – and the law – cares.

  >>However, an author can’t tacitly, heck not even tacitly, actually endorse “plagiarized” content in one format while fighting it in another.

  Yes, they absolutely can. Create a YouTube video using a film and no one will bother you; resell that film on the street, and you could easily get busted.

  >>You say that Rowling is fine with someone using their own words to describe her ideas, but, other than some speculative essays on this site, aren’t you saying that all the content was essentially Rowling’s?

  Yes, absolutely, word for word, wth some minor changes, which is the key point.

  >>Why didn’t she stop it then — if the stealing was as extensive you’re saying, why did she (or her lawyers) allow it continue? Why did she use the content as a resource? Why did she endorse it?

  Because she did? What does it matter? Because suing a fan who isn’t making (anything more than a pittance’ worth) of money off it would be bad PR, and in bad taste?

  >>I’m serious about this. When authors discover they’re being plagiarized, whether or not the plagiarist is making money or doing it for profit, they take action.

  You *really* think plagiarism is copyright infringement, don’t you!

  It may not make a difference TO YOU whether it’s for money or not. It makes a TREMENDOUS difference to the LAW.

  >> There is a vast difference between fan-fic, fan sites, and other fan actions and out-and-out plagiarism. You seem to be conflating plagiarism with standard fan activities. Plagiarism is, even when free, not “harmless”.

  I never once conflated plagiarism with other fan activities, that one was all you. But there is no doubt at ALL that JKR has been lenient in allowing her copyright to be thrown wlly nilly around when fans are doing it for fun. When it’s for profit, and crosses the line from transformative to just plain stealing, she says enough is enough.

  >>In fact, your point about mash-ups, etc supports my point. There has to be a reasonable threshold for fair use versus stealing.

  There absolutely is. It’s called when you take a work and use it to make something else, and when you just take a work, period. The latter is what the Lexicon has done.

  As you say, there should be a line. You’e just proved my point. She is drawing that line. I’m so pleased to hear you agree, oh, my!

  >>If this case were about simple plagiarism, then I doubt it would have gone to trial.

  Again.

  Copyright infringement.

  Not plagiarism.

  Though they did plagiarize, this case is about copyright infringement, which is a veyr real construct to which the purpose (ie, are they selling it?) MATTERS, a great deal.

  >>RDR doesn’t have the resources to litigate this. Rowling does, Warner Brothers does.

  RDR has Stanford to litigate it for them; Stanford has an agenda, WB has money. Evens things out quite a bit. God, read about the case, please!

  >>It doesn’t matter if it’s online, in print, for profit, not for profit.

  Again: You are wrong.

  It may not matter to you, bu it matters to the law.

  >> Stealing is stealing. Format doesn’t matter.

  Man, read an article. Stealing IS stealing, but the format determines whether or not it can be STOPPED.

  >>Do you think that the RIAA is suing left and right because of physical media? No.

  That’s because the physical media isn’t what’s posng a threat. The digital media is. You’re sitting here telling me format doesn’t matter, and then are saying that the RIAA wouldn’t HESITATE to prosecute someone who sold physical records out of their building and gave them away for free? You point out a format difference, which is the KEY reason that Napster was shut down, which is WHY the RIAA has to start suing, and then start saying format doesn’t matter?!

  >>If you’re going to assert your rights, you must do so the moment you are aware of a violation. You don’t wink with one eye and glare with another.

  Nope. Wrong. Copyright can be selectively enforced. Trademark cannot.

  >>You cannot pick and choose the format when it comes to plagiarism.

  Once more: Plagiarism? Bad and wrong but not actionable. Copyright infringement, in which format and purpose and money matters? VERY actionable.

  >> Even if I’m to accept your point, Rowling and Warner Brothers weakened their positions long ago.

  Not so. They are vigorous when it comes to defending themselves whenever it crosses the line you so kindly delineated.

  >>Let’s talk about free because I think it’s a seriously misunderstood concept when it comes to online media. Just because you, the consumer, get to view the content without paying doesn’t make it free, just like the fact that you don’t pay for network television or terrestrial radio doesn’t make it free.

  It makes it free *for me*.

  >>As you indicated, the author made some money from selling ads. Probably not enough to cover his costs, but the fact that he’s displaying ads on his site indicates a desire to monetize content. Sorry, it does.

  Again you show a stunning and irresponsible lack of care for research. That he has ads on his site means he has covered his costs, and nothing more. Sorry, it does. That he has ads but is not SELLING his content, makes a big difference. Sorry, it does. He recently majorly amped his ad coverage on his site because of an impending server change – which I know because I have followed the case, and you don’t, because you have not.

  >>If he’s not capable of making real money, that’s not my problem. He’s selling advertising. You and everyone else who visits this site are “paying” in the form of viewing ads.

  I’m paying nothing. It’s your advertisers who are paying. And I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts they free themselves of liability regarding your content somehwere in the agreements you sign with them.

  >>I still think Rowling and Warner Brothers handled this badly. From the beginning. You say that RDR has generated all the publicity, but you’re quite wrong.

  LOL, what?

  Do a tiny bit of research into who has made statements and when, and when you come back, I’ll still be laughing. RDR are the ones who equated a Cease and Desist letter to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.

  Yes, JKR is a celebrity and that garners publicity, but that is hardly her fault nor should be her concern doing what she feels is right. She hasn’t stoked the flames at all. She made one public comment, and issued a statement, during this trial. She posted on her Web site the day that the suit was filed, and once more. And that’s it. Meanwhle RDR and Steve Vander Ark continue to make asinine comments on their sites and in the press, contradicting themselves to the point of embarrassment.

  >> Rowling’s celebrity has spun this from a small story into a front-page story. RDR simply wins.

  Except when they lose.

  But again, you make my point. If it was anything but a sense that it was what was right, JKR, publicity savvy as she must have become over the past years, would have avoided gving them such publicity at all costs. She did not. That says she has to bear that in search of some other purpose.

  >>For the record, never bought an RDR book, never met anyone from the company, never visited the Vander Ark site (except for researching this article), and have paid full price for every book in the Harry Potter series.

  Well, good for you.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 21, 2008 at 8:39 pm

  Brenda — I’m hoping you’ll smile at this, truly (g), but I’m totally going to stretch your last comment into another sphere that isn’t wholly analogous (think of it as me thinking out loud; I hope you’re willing to play along because I think it’s a cool topic). This gets back to a difference of opinion we’ve had in the past…

  If we can agree that most people are not pirates, then we can agree that most people who purchase ebooks read them and move on, just as readers of your print books so (some keep, some don’t). In the physical world, a lot of consumers pass these books on to friends or take them to used bookstores or thrift stores. Physical books are continuously recycled, and, you, like many authors, view this as a good thing. I agree. Though I only buy new now, I admit freely that I used used books to find new authors.

  As you know, I have advocated for some sort of secondary compensation for authors due to the fact that no additional royalties are accrued from these aftermarket sales. There are many models, none in the publishing business, for compensating content creators for sales that happen outside the first sale. I think this will become a more serious topic of discussion in the future, but want to mention it now because it’s part and parcel of today’s topic.

  So, for argument’s sake, let’s say that I buy an ebook. As part of the doctrine of first sale, I have the right to “give” it to another party (pretending the doctrine of first sale is equally applied to all media purchases), just as I would a physical book. I email to my best friend who emails it to her mother and so on, pretty much like it happens with books in the physical sphere. Or I give to BitTorrent to do with it what they will, just like I’d hand it over the Salvation Army. It’s my book, I paid for it, and the Doctrine of First Sale says I can do this (with physical media). Acceptable or not?

  Legally, it’s unacceptable. Digital media is subject to different rules than physical media. Consumers are limited in ways they’ve never been limited before, but you (generic you, not just Brenda you) have said, time and again, that these secondary markets serve a serious marketing purpose. They increase your exposure. Data from the height of the Napster era proves your right: music sales actually rose before they pulled the plug on the service.

  So, yes, some consumers might buy a legal copy of a book and then turn around and upload it to a file sharing site. And sure, the an increase in ebook sales might increase the number of consumers who engage in this practice, but since it takes just one — and that one can happen with or without a legally sanctioned copy — does it really matter?

  I continue to maintain that the best way to combat piracy is to make it more attractive for consumers to pay than to pirate. Make the cookie tastier and easier to consume, then you don’t have so much trouble with dry, stale cookies that might leave crumbs or viruses on your computer.

• Brenda Coulter // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  So, yes, some consumers might buy a legal copy of a book and then turn around and upload it to a file sharing site. And sure, the an increase in ebook sales might increase the number of consumers who engage in this practice, but since it takes just one — and that one can happen with or without a legally sanctioned copy — does it really matter?

  Well, yeah, it does. A hundred people illegally copying and distributing an e-book can do more damage and do it a lot faster than just one bootlegger. But it’s midnight where I live, and I’m too tired to fight any more tonight. 😉

  I continue to maintain that the best way to combat piracy is to make it more attractive for consumers to pay than to pirate.

  I don’t disagree. Again, what I took issue with was simply your assertion that the legitimate distribution of Potter e-books would have decreased piracy. But I guess we’re not going to agree on that, so I give up. Just say you’ll let me win our next argument. 😉

• Kirk // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:10 pm

  Brenda – using your logic there must have been a rash of Harry Potter thefts in bookstores around the world. So many copies sitting on the bookstore shelves just waiting to be stolen …

• Brenda Coulter // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:10 pm

  Oooh. Cancel that last message which had some formatting errors….

  So, yes, some consumers might buy a legal copy of a book and then turn around and upload it to a file sharing site. And sure, the an increase in ebook sales might increase the number of consumers who engage in this practice, but since it takes just one — and that one can happen with or without a legally sanctioned copy — does it really matter?

  Well, yeah, it does. A hundred people illegally copying and distributing an e-book can do more damage and do it a lot faster than just one bootlegger. But it’s midnight where I live, and I’m too tired to fight any more tonight. 😉

  I continue to maintain that the best way to combat piracy is to make it more attractive for consumers to pay than to pirate.

  I don’t disagree. Again, what I took issue with was simply your assertion that the legitimate distribution of Potter e-books would have decreased piracy. But I guess we’re not going to agree on that, so I give up. Just say you’ll let me win our next argument. 😉

• Brenda Coulter // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:12 pm

  Brenda – using your logic there must have been a rash of Harry Potter thefts in bookstores around the world.

  Yep.
  😉

• Kirk // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:13 pm

  Oh wait, I forgot about the Bible. It’s just sitting there in all those hotel rooms. Man, a lot of those must get stolen.

• Britannia // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:16 pm

  BS is a good monogram for this site. What a pathetic misunderstanding of copyright infringement! Folklore Fanatic and Sandy know more about the facts of this case than KK. (Shouldn’t there be another K there?) And no, dear heart, the website is nothing like the book. So save your breath, sugar, and wait for the HBO movie if you’re too lazy to read the court documents.

• Speakeasy » Blog Archive » JK Rowling v. Fan, or Fan v. JK Rowling? // Apr 21, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  […] Booksquare has weighed in on the debate, discussing the merits of suing your readers, and the kind of ill-will and future suppression of fandoms that could potentially come out of it. In the comments on the post, debate continues, with some very interesting points for and against, by readers who have been following the case much closer than me. […]

• Erastes // Apr 22, 2008 at 5:55 am

  It’s an appalling thing to do. She praised the site more than once, and admitted that she’d used it herself. (Obviously not terribly often, given the glaring canon errors that abounded the last 2 books)

  As for her own encyclopaedia? I’m no longer in the fandom, having (despite being a fan for the whole of the ride) lost the will to live after Half Blood Prince – but I wouldn’t buy it and that’s not because of this fiasco. She doesn’t know her own world as well as the fans, she muddles her own canon, gets things blatantly wrong and contradicts previously known facts and spells. all her own encyclopaedia will do will make things worse.

  Leave the facts and figures to people who KNOW the series, Jo.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 22, 2008 at 6:36 am

  Phew. I knew I was taking on the mafia when I chose headline. JK (or, J.K.) Rowling is wrong. Sorry, she’s wrong (and so is Warner Brothers).

  For Sandy’s sake, I’ll explain why I’m focusing on the narrower issue of plagiarism. Based on everything I’ve read (including the commentary of the coterie), there seems to be a clear case of the author of this so-called lexicon stealing Rowling’s specific words and republishing them in various media. The larger issue of wholesale copyright infringement is not so clear-cut — hence the warring experts in copyright law and differing opinions as to what constitutes infringement.

  Had Rowling/WB focused on the narrower issue, they’d have a stronger position, but they made it bigger and messier than it needed to be. And they weakened their position by endorsing the work of the author.

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:45 am

  So what she used the site before. If you’re a mom, and your little girl plays dress up at home with your things, you may find it cute and play along, but if she wanted to take YOUR new dress that you’re going to wear , wear it in the street impersonate you, get congradulated for it, and say, ” don’t you love MY new dress”, I know any reasonable person would say this is ridiculous.I think Ms. Rowling was kind, but you know if you give and inch someone’s going to take a yard. there’s always one. Don’t keep talking about poor fan. Talk about betrayal of a fan.

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:46 am

  So what she used the site before. If you’re a mom, and your little girl plays dress up at home with your things, you may find it cute and play along, but if she wanted to take YOUR new dress that you’re going to wear , wear it in the street impersonate you, get congradulated for it, and say, ” don’t you love MY new dress”, I know any reasonable person would say this is ridiculous.I think Ms. Rowling was kind, but you know if you give and inch someone’s going to take a yard,there’s always one. Don’t keep talking about poor fan. Talk about betrayal of a fan.

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:48 am

  correction- give AN inch

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:50 am

  correction – AN inch

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:51 am

  an inch

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:53 am

  an-sorry

• Terri // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:55 am

  I didnt spell- an- properly sorry(bout that) smile.

• Sandy // Apr 22, 2008 at 10:21 am

  I love how you think if you repeat, “Rowling is wrong,” and toss in a “Sorry, she is,” that makes you right.

  Newsflash: It does not.

  Your cred is gone.

• Sandy // Apr 22, 2008 at 10:24 am

  One more tme since you don’t seem to be able to get it. Maybe less words will help:

  Stealing them and putting them online for free – sucky, but, not actionable, and endorsement doesn’t negate that it’s wrong (since you’re all “stealing is stealing,” maybe you should delineate just how stealing when endorsed is not stealing?)

  Stealing them and SELLING THEM?

  Bingo! Copyright infringement – you know, the part that the law actually cares about, and makes her right – proven.

  This blogger is wrong. Sorry, you are. Oh, wait, just saying that doesn’t make me right, does it? Good thing I used those silly little FACTS.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 22, 2008 at 11:47 am

  Stealing and putting online for free = actionable. That’s what the US Copyright Law says (here), though I suppose you could technically argue that no reproduction or distribution took place. Of course, as we’ve previously established, though you refuse to acknowledge it, there was a financial component to this author’s online actions. That he was particularly lame about monetizing this site is not an issue.

  I realize that you have declared this case over and done, but the judge in the case made it clear that the issues being raised (by both parties) are not as clear as you’d like to pretend. As those of us who are actually paying attention have noted, this case also covers issues related to fair use.

  If the copyright issues were as easily resolved as you indicate, then the judge in question wouldn’t be urging settlement. You can call me stupid, irrational, ignorant, but you can’t avoid the fact that you’re arguing the half of the case that you like while conveniently ignoring the parts that don’t dovetail nicely with your worldview.

• daretoeatapeach // Apr 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

  It is arguable that the book is not exactly a work of criticism, as all the other derivitive books released have been. But I still don’t think she is likely to win this case. There’s a lot of emotion but not a lot of logic. I recently wrote a blog on it myself which I’d love comments on: http://paperbackpusher.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/rowlings-reckoning-is-beckoning/

• Luiz Dantas // Apr 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  Krozser, you say in a comment: “If Rowling and/or WB had an issue with the content, the appropriate time to issue a cease and desist would have been, oh, when it was first published online.”

  Are you saying that she lost her copyrights just by allowing that site to exist? Because I’m certain that her lawyers and Warner Bros. know all about copyright laws and would not have allowed the site to exist if that was the case. And in principle, advertising money from Google ads et al is directed towards maintenance of the site itself (or so I’ve heard). If you are profiting out of someone else’s copyrighted material, that’s a crime.

• Sandy // Apr 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm

  I haven’t declared it over and done: That was you. I was telling you that your whole “She’s just wrong” concept is wrong, and that this is an ACTUAL case with reasons why she is NOT wrong, according to the *law*.

  YOU are the one who NAMED this blog, “JK Rowling is wrong.” Judge Patterson, are you?

  I really can’t believe you run a blog about books and have this level of comprehension. Wow.

  Yes, distributing free online is technically actionable: With this kind of case, though, it would be laughed out of court unless they had some commercial purpose. Now they do.

• Luiz Dantas // Apr 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  Even if I wasn’t sided with Rowling on this case, I’d have to agree with Sandy that you are handling her opposite argumuents very poorly. Refering to people who don’t agree with you as “the mafia” is not classy at all. Even less so is coming up with “JK Rowling is wrong. Sorry, she’s wrong”. When I wrote my last comment, I haven’t read all of your comments in here and I thought you were better than that. Now, I’m not entirely sure if you are really up for a debate. Oh well.

• Luiz Dantas // Apr 22, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  In cases like these judges always urge to settle. It takes the problem off their shoulders.

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm

  You don’t like my opinion. Cool. I don’t like the fact that you and your coterie are so enmeshed in this world that you acknowledge only one side of the argument. The law is not as clear as Sandy pretends. I believe the course of action taken by Rowling and WB was wrong. You believe it’s right. We’ll both have to live with the fact other people in the world have different opinions.

  I have allowed the ranting, the raving, and the name calling, but I’m getting really bored. I’ve had the misfortune of meeting, in various forums, the kind of readers you will be when you grow up, and I assure you that the future is not pretty. One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how fangirls (and their boys) travel in packs…and they have an amazing consistency when it comes to using partial/fake names without any identifying characteristics.

  Given your low opinion of me and my thoughts on this issue, I can think of no better solution than for you to stop coming back here and commenting. I promise you that my tender feelings will recover from the loss, and I suspect you’ll be much happier in a group where you all agree with each other.

  Luis — the debate ended many, many comments ago. At first, Sandy amused me. Now she doesn’t.

• Jayge // Apr 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm

  I, too, have read every page of the transcript from this trial, and have been reading all the case materials filed on Justia for the past couple months. (As a Disney fansite owner, I have a vested interest in this type of thing.) I think that the aspect of this case that Sandy (and the rest of what I think of as “Jo’s Army”) fail to understand, though it seems clear to me, is that this case is almost entirely about fair use. RDR’s defense practically allows that the book infringes, even heavily – though they don’t come out and say it.

  As far as the merits of the defense are concerned: I would submit that even simply alphabetizing a significant amount of material is quite transformative in and of itself (despite the unimaginative folks out there who feel that discerning what is worthy of inclusion and compiling all that information is as simple as “cutting and pasting.” Imagine using an encyclopdia that wasn’t alphabetized and contained each entry randomly.) The law does make room for transformative uses to be aimed at children, of which arranging material to be easy to use would be a good example.

  (Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Harry Potter books, while appealing to all ages, are ostensibly children’s books, right?)

  Furthermore, as I understand fair use, the percentage of material copied is important in relation to the amount of original copyrighted material – NOT the amount contained in the infringing book. RDR makes a number of arguments in their pre-trial statements that even 100% of an infringing work can be taken from copyrighted materials and be found to be fair use. I would think that even a highly-infringing 400+ page Lexicon would, by necessity, contain only a limited amount of Rowling’s copyrighted material – after all, she’s published thousands and thousands of pages of Potter, right? So I think the “91% infringing” figure that is bandied about by Jo’s Army is a red herring in some respects.

  I think this case is pretty even on both sides – there is heavy infringement, but there is also very good reason to claim fair use. I have a hard time understanding why so many Rowling fans fail to see how complex this situation is. Sandy – despite being way up there on an irritatingly high horse, you seem to be pretty much right about the LAW – but fair use is about how the law can be set aside in certain situations, and that’s the thrust of this case, in my opinion.

• Sandy // Apr 22, 2008 at 8:10 pm

  >You don’t like my opinion. Cool. I don’t like the fact that you and your coterie are so enmeshed in this world that you acknowledge only one side of the argument.

  And you’re capable of making broad generalizations about people you have never met, too! Wow, it gets better and better!

  >> The law is not as clear as Sandy pretends. I believe the course of action taken by Rowling and WB was wrong. You believe it’s right. We’ll both have to live with the fact other people in the world have different opinions.

  I said I believe it’s not wrong, and that coming down completely on any one side is what’s wrong. In this case it has been made atrociously clear how terrible a test case it is for expanding fair use, and yes, I believe the law will rule on Rowlng’s side. That doesn’t mean I blanket the whole thing like you do.

  >>I have allowed the ranting, the raving, and the name calling, but I’m getting really bored. I’ve had the misfortune of meeting, in various forums, the kind of readers you will be when you grow up, and I assure you that the future is not pretty.

  Gosh, I’m so glad you’re so perceptive, and can see the future! OMG! Tell me who wins the presidential election!

  I’m not going on conjectures about your future, I’m going on what you’re writing right here, and I’m telling you now, your reading comprehension is not pretty.

  >> One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how fangirls (and their boys) travel in packs…and they have an amazing consistency when it comes to using partial/fake names without any identifying characteristics.

  I’ve just looked to my right and left and haven’t identified any pack…. have you?

  I am one person, disagreeing with you.

  Everyone who comments on your blog uses a real name but me, is that it? Wow, that is a delusional point of view if I ever saw one.

  And who said I was a fangirl? Just because I think the law favors JKR doesn’t at all make me a fangirl. Assumptions, you know what they say.

  >>Given your low opinion of me and my thoughts on this issue, I can think of no better solution than for you to stop coming back here and commenting.

  Awesome, I can’t wait until you cease to make this a public blog so that I can’t.

  >> I promise you that my tender feelings will recover from the loss, and I suspect you’ll be much happier in a group where you all agree with each other.

  Aw, shucks, since your opinion means so much to me, and since you’ve been so right about EVERYTHING else, I should take what oyu said here as right, too.

  Um, strike that, reverse it.

  It seems to be you who is saying, “You don’t agree with me, so go away.” Pot, kettle. I’m the one arguing an unpopular opinion off my own space – and your’e the one who’s so viciously against people disagreeing with you here. Poor litlte blogger, let me feel bad for you.

  >>Luis — the debate ended many, many comments ago. At first, Sandy amused me. Now she doesn’t.

  Gosh, I’m so glad, because I have not made one joke. I’m glad to see you’ve started to learn how to read! Progress!

• Kassia Krozser // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  Jayge — I’m glad you reintroduced fair use to this discussion. It’s an essential element of this case, since RDR’s position is keyed to fair use. There are a lot of interesting arguments relating particularly to the transformative nature of this so-called lexicon, and it will be interesting to see how the judge interprets the actual lifting of words and phrases against the fact that this material is organized and presented in a manner that doesn’t in any way compete with the existing text.

  Content owners are increasingly using legislation to limit the public’s rights under copyright law and general law. Fan fiction, in particular, is vulnerable, especially if you apply the four key elements of fair use. Fan fiction relating to Disney products is something that I’m guessing you must be particularly vigilant about to protect yourself. Disney has been a major force in the shunting aside of the public rights when it comes to copyright, and I do appreciate the irony of their efforts.

  The number of moving parts in this case are amazing. If you think it’s just about the law as it relates to one aspect of copyright, then you’re misunderstanding the purpose of copyright. Without fair use, we don’t have open conversation about works of art.

• MRSTJ1 // Apr 24, 2008 at 7:32 am

  This whole thing has been grossly mismanaged in my opinion. I feel sorry for both parties and frustated with both parties. There have been other HP encyclopedias before, because I own some of them. Jo stopped some, but not all and some only after they were in print. I don’t think it really mattered to her until SHE decided to write one. Right now the only ones winning are the lawyers. I wish they had come to some amical arrangement before it went this far. Steve’s an idiot at times, but so is Jo. This case had been made more complicated by the actions of both parties as I see it.

• Melvin // Apr 24, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Jo is not an idiot. Jo, is the literary genius, that the IDIOT is trying to steal from.

• naughty jk « Locus // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  […] Square agrees – JK Rowling Is Wrong – or follow the whole story as it has unfolded in the media from the RDR […]

• MRSTJ1 // Apr 25, 2008 at 7:03 am

  Jo is no genius in my opinion. Much of her content was not original. It’s a collection of classic mythical animals and ideas, just turned into a more complicated version of “The Worst Witch” series. And her writing had a ton of mistakes in it that a genius would not make. But that is neither here nor there.

  Does anyone really believe that people who would shell out money for Steve’s book, or the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Harry Potter (Tere Stouffer) or the Field Guide to Harry Potter ( Colin Duriez) or the Unofficial Guide to J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter (George Beahm) or the Pottersaurus (Eric Randall) or the Sorcerer’s Companion (Allan and Elizabeth Kronzek), which aside from Steve’s book are all still for sale, would NOT want to buy Jo’s book, too? And they all are based on the same series.

  How much original content would he have to add before he’d be able to safely publish? His mistake was probably that he asked before he did it, which the others did not. If he had just published it, she would have probably sued to stop him, because we are talking about Steve after all, but he would have sold a lot of books in the meantime to people wanting to know what the big deal was.

  They are both at fault as I see it. And I have no love for Steve, believe me. I was banned from the site’s forums ages ago.

• Melvin // Apr 25, 2008 at 4:30 pm

  Okay’ so who could take anything original, or not, and compile it to make your own astronomical series. You still have to create your own classic and keep it going as long as she has intriquing everything in her path. Let’s face it, she is a phenomonon, and as much as you try to dispute that, you can’t dispute HER compilation of genius.

• Random Access Mazar » Blog Archive » Why Rowling Should Lose her Case // Apr 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm

  […] Booksquare, J.K. Rowling is Wrong […]

• MRSTJ1 // Apr 28, 2008 at 6:03 am

  Being a phenomenon does not prove you are a genius. If so, Miley Cyrus would be the greatest singer in history, Danielle Steele would be the greatest author in history, and New Kids on the Block would be the greatest band in history. Being a celebrity and making a lot of money does not prove you are a genius.

• Melvin // Apr 28, 2008 at 9:02 am

  Their are all kinds of genius. Genius, does not mean perfection, or that you know all. In this case, Ms. Rowling is a literary genius. Ms. Rowling decided to draw from her life experiences, and personally created one of the most imaginable, fictional, and financially successful works of literature that has no demographic boundries. To do this and do this continually with the same level of intrigue and success, constitutes personally gifted in the art of literature.

• redwall_hp // May 1, 2008 at 8:16 am

  *Applauds*

  I’ve been meaning to write-up an editorial on this suit for quite some time now. I have to say I’m on Mr. Vander Ark’s side here. This lawsuit will make a precedent that will either protect or further destroy fair use.

  True, there are some parts of the print Lexicon that JKR has a right to take issue with, like the excessive quoting and lack of quotation marks, but compromise. Allow the publication of the book, but rework the text of the book a little.

  P.S. I couldn’t help but noticing this in your post: “Rowling, over the course of eight books, created a complex world…” There are only seven books. Unless you are counting JKR’s as of yet unpublished encyclopedia?

• AF Wu // May 1, 2008 at 2:59 pm

  One thing I would like to point out, that no one in the e-book debate has mentioned yet, is that many people with disabilities need an e-version of a book for any realistic sort of accessibility. For example, can you imagine how big a braille copy of some of the longer HP books would be? Your wrists would fall off before you could finish it… Using an electronic reader would be much more practical.

• Karen A. Brown, author of Prejudice in Harry Potter // May 3, 2008 at 3:46 am

  I am somewhat like the author of this article: a huge fan of Harry Potter who has read all the books. But I have had to force myself to look at this objectively and put my bias in favour of JK Rowling aside. This lawsuit just doesn’t feel right. Not that I am on Vander Ark’s side, because I am not, but it still hurts me to see things descend into a lawsuit. For me, this is low.

  I’ve actually written an academic study about the prejudice and discrimination themes in Rowling’s work; and I never once felt susceptible to a lawsuit. Rowling has said she delights in critical analysis of her work. Nethertheless, the idea that one has to print “Not AUTHORIZED” on the cover of literary criticism blows my mind. Where would literature be if people did not comment on it? Someone somewhere is determined that no one but Warner Brothers should make money off of Harry Potter. I don’t think it’s JK Rowling who has made this decision; but I think she has allowed herself to be influenced, perhaps led astray. I am also disturbed by some of the “blind following” and fanaticism that some Harry Potter fans display. We’ve become sheep. Surely this is not what Ms. Rowling would have wanted?

• Melvin // May 3, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  “Blind following”, I don’t know about that, but I do know that saying Ms. Rowling, is beening influenced on HER decision of HER creation “Harry Potter”, is funny. Iam sure she feels just as PASSIONATE about HER creation as YOU,or ANYONE, would be. When something is a fact, it is a fact. There is nothing “BLIND”, about that. If someone COMMENTS on something, THAT’S DIFFERENT from taking whole statements from the author and claiming it as THEIR OWN. I’am someone like the author of this article: a huge fan of Harry Potter who has read all the books. Sound familiar?

• Cheryl // May 5, 2008 at 8:11 am

  Wow. Guys, don’t you think you’re getting a little emotional about the subject? I understand caring about it all, but ripping into each other changes nothing.

  I’m not a Potter fan, the books have great characters but break most (if not all) literary rules. However, I do see that the issue now comes down to money. If money can be made then the author will be there.

  The intelligent thing to do would have been to recognize while the content WAS free to the reader, that it would not always be so. That giving even an implied endorsement would be seen (by a fan) as encouragement and to have stopped the train there. It would have been easy to do, insist that the content be more essay and less direct quotation would have done it.

  What I’d like to know is what person spent the time to go through and count that 90% of the content was hers? Do we really have that much useless time on our hands? Did we count by letter and character or by total word? How much was a “,” worth?

  Seriously, I think we’re feeding a machine that resolution either way is going to hurt the end reader. Maybe if we gave it less attention they’d stop driving us nuts with this.

• redwall_hp // May 5, 2008 at 12:10 pm

  I’ve said this before: “Three words: Culture. Of. Ownership.,” referring to http://cultureofownership.org/?p=3

• Melvin // May 5, 2008 at 2:39 pm

  You’re interpretation of someone making a factual point is your interpretation at least it is original. (:>

• Melvin // May 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  sorry, (your) not you’re

• Bluestocking // May 6, 2008 at 7:33 am

  hello everyone. I am a fan of the Harry Potter books as well as an attorney. I’ve done an extensive write up on my blog on the legal proofs and considerations of this case. Maybe this will answer a lot of questions.

• Karen A. Brown, author of Prejudice in Harry Potter // May 8, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  Quoting Melvin // May 3, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  “Blind following”, I don’t know about that, but I do know that saying Ms. Rowling, is beening influenced on HER decision of HER creation “Harry Potter”, is funny. Iam sure she feels just as PASSIONATE about HER creation as YOU,or ANYONE, would be. When something is a fact, it is a fact. There is nothing “BLIND”, about that. If someone COMMENTS on something, THAT’S DIFFERENT from taking whole statements from the author and claiming it as THEIR OWN. I’am someone like the author of this article: a huge fan of Harry Potter who has read all the books. Sound familiar?

  Melvin, there was no need to shout. I am not in any way implying that Rowling doesn’t have the right to protect her copyright. Quite the contrary. All I said is that it didn’t have to descend into a lawsuit. And yes, I do think she is being influenced by the Warner Brothers Machine to a large degree. I also stand by my statements elsewhere that we the fans should perhaps stay out of it and let the judge decide and let Rowling and Vander Ark sort out their issues. There are far too many of us and just one of him. And with the sort of remarks I have seen on some fan sites, the death threats, etc. I think this has long passed outside the realm of the humane. Rowling might liken her fictional characters to her children, but I personally would not place such a high value on Harry and co (I think she was misguided in making this statement in her public speeches during the trial). Steve Vander Ark has made a mistake, but at the end of the day, he is still a man. A human being just like you and me. Where is our compassion, I ask. No, that’s not the same as saying “just let him off the hook.” Just let us tone the language down, modify the lynch-mob type behaviour and let justice run its course.

• Tammy W. of AV, California, USA // Jun 19, 2008 at 10:28 pm

  This is what I wrote to the website and creator behind the sad book, I agree with many above + it is plagiarism. Every college would kick Steve and his publishers out of their school, pronto!

  Dear Steve and fellow Lexicon workers,

  I just wanted to say that I felt it was rather low of you and your website to try and reproduce JK Rowling’s work as your own. Your site seemed good, though I never visited until now. JK Rowling even gave you an award and this is how you repay her, by stealing her work she spent 17 years creating and preempting her manuscript idea! You seemed to be a good site, especially for those fact checkers who like to be sure while reading, and even for Rowling herself. What you did in disrespecting the author and Harry himself in attempting to publish, by your name without consent from JK Rowling or profits going to her, from your website the facts of the book and whatever else you intended is what I would expect Lord Voldemort himself to be capable of, not Harry Potter fans. JK Rowling has said numerous times that she would not write any further after book seven (with all her fans, myself included, crying over this fact) but that she would write a manuscript for the series including the multitude of facts that never made it into the Harry Potter books (fans now rejoiced at this with the pain of Harry’s passing – in the book’s ending – slightly lessening). If JK Rowling decides not to write the manuscript, which was to include things she has never let fans know before, and she said because of your unworthy act she felt less inclined to write it, I will never forgive you. In attempting to write a timeline, which I myself have 60 page notes from her books so I could check the facts (though I will never sell them or even show or let anyone else use them as they are still JK Rowling’s property -her brain child and not yours!), you helped fans follow closely and remember facts. But in trying to publish it as your own you thereby stole JK Rowling’s work and should be sued (I hope JK wins!). I will never purchase your book and will tell all I know what you have tried. My heart is truly saddened by this pathetic attempt to steal the great JK Rowling’s work. Other fan sites have done books, but those books have been the website creator’s opinions, not JK Rowling’s writings and facts. Please, save your respect, say sorry to JK Rowling, and never print your book. You should be ashamed!!!!!!!

• Realistic Dove // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:05 am

  J.K Rowling won, so this site it pretty much for…what?

• Chris Eastvedt : Parody in Publishing: When My Perspective Isn’t Yours // Jun 15, 2009 at 3:40 pm

  […] Last year J.K. Rowling entered into a lawsuit against RDR Books to stop publication of a compendium of all things Harry Potter, claiming that she had planned to write one herself and that a flooded marketplace of such books would benefit no one. But here’s the thing: the content in question came from a fan’s website, something that J.K. Rowling had sanctioned and praised. It seems that when the material was confined to a localized web space all was well, but the prospect of that same information being compiled into book form created tension. Why is that? Again, it’s simple. J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers were afraid of losing control (i.e. money). Their argument is that the owner of a copyright should be given control over what gets published as a secondary work, as well as the sole right to publish in book form information that is, or has been, available for public viewing (in this case, via the internet). Does anyone see a flaw in this logic? Yeah, well you’re not alone. […]